Re: [802SEC] Response to March 2006 Letter to EC regarding 802.20
(I apologize for the length, more succinct would have been better.)
While I find no specific facts to disagree with in your response to Anna
Tee, Victor Hou and Jie Zhen Lin, I agree with them strongly with respect
to their underlying complaint.
It appears to me that the WG Chair is trying to make a choice of speed at
the expense of consensus. I believe that (short of an extended deadlock
situation) this is a bad choice.
On that basis, I believe that the decision of Mr. Upton was wrong. I
believe that the potential for remedy lies in whether or not the required
votes of the EC will support his projects in spite of his actions to block
the level of openness that is an 802 tradition. My hope would be that the
EC would not ratify the advancement of the draft under these sort of
I strongly believe that such an action would be appropriate in terms of the
oversight responsibilities of the EC. As members of the oversight board
(the EC) we have a fiduciary <http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/F0106500.html>
duty to both the IEEE-SA and to the entire membership of 802 to support
openness and consensus. It is our job to reflect this responsibility in our
votes on officer confirmation, project progression and financial matters.
IEEE and 802 standards are supposed to be consensus standards developed in
an environment open to all materially interested parties. Unfortunately,
the IEEE and 802 P&P leave something to be desired in support of that goal.
This is understandable when the leadership is benign and committed to a
consensus process. IEEE 802 has a strong record of success when this
commitment is fulfilled. IEEE 802 also has had a string of failures over
the years when this commitment was not fulfilled. The 802 P&P (and even
more so, the 802 habitual practices) to their credit, have evolved from
their earliest form to be ever more strongly in favor of supporting the
consensus view as opposed to the agenda of the chair.
The strength of the 802 brand of standards lies, not in the label nor
approval and publication, but in the very broad support provided by the
consensus that produced the standard.
At 06:26 AM 8/10/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>This email is to inform you of the follow-up to the attached letter
>(BRG_letter_final.doc) sent to the EC in March 2006 by Anna Tee, Victor
>Hou and Jie Zhen Lin requesting input on concerns regarding the March 2006
>802.20 session. I met with Anna, Jie, Tom Kolze (on behalf of Victor
>Hou), the 802.20 Chair and the 802 1st Vice Chair to discuss the concerns
>at July plenary session and have responded with the attached communication
>(060809 Response to Anna Tee.pdf).
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
>list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.